AFAIK, Bisq uses a derivation path of m/44'/0'/0' and since your addresses are legacy addresses, you should choose legacy(p2pkh) and click next. The wallet should load the addresses and display them.

It's not difficult to determine the link between addresses just that there are varying degrees of certainty and that the certainty will never ever be 100%.

The privacy score is pretty deceptive due to the myriad of resources that could be used to uncover your tracks. I think it's fair to say that most of the paid/free services are not intuitive enough to go right in depth into the specifics. I'm sure someone can train scripts to study the patterns used between various transactions to identify addresses. IMO, most of the services offer proprietary algorithm which means they shouldn't provide it for free because they don't stand to benefit from it's use.

There is no point trying to determine your privacy score because someone with sufficient resources could potentially discover links even though the services may give you a good rating. Blockchair provides a privacy meter[1] and walletexplorer.com can link addresses. If you're really serious about privacy, going by privacy ratings is not sufficient.

[1] https://blockchair.com/api/docs#link_M6

Why not? What's the difference with the previous versions? Just download and verify the signature with PGP.

Electrum definitely cannot handle thousands of address at once. For Core, I know there's significant lag after a certain threshold of transactions on slower computers. I'm not exactly sure what causes the lag but if I had to guess it's probably the addresses' metadata and not the number of keys it's contained. Reusing of keys is not the default behavior of Bitcoin Core anyways, since it generates new key for each transaction.

Forgive me because I didn't really do a thorough reading on TapRoot or Schnorr for that matter. With key aggregation, is it still possible to derive the individual public keys used for the transaction using the single public key revealed in such a transaction? My understanding that the individual public keys are not known but only the aggregated key will be within the script.

But again, it does make sense if the aggregated public key can be used to obtain something that can still be used to sign transactions to produce a valid signature. Please CMIIW.

No one can figure out how to do this with a classical computer in operations lesser than 2^128. With Shor's algorithm and a sufficiently powerful quantum computer, the number of operations can be shortened to 128^3.

The question lies in the effectiveness in quantum computers in cracking asymmetrical cryptography (ECDSA, RSA) etc. As of now, the most efficient quantum computers are not anywhere close to be able to crack them in a reasonable amount of time. It's important to note that quantum annealing is not very suitable for the job, if at all. With Bitcoin, the likelihood of someone breaking SHA256, RIPEMD-160 and ECDSA with a quantum computer is fairly low so not reusing addresses could give you a boost of security. The only timeframe they'll have is the amount of time between the transaction is broadcasted and confirmed.

The impact of quantum computers affects much more than Bitcoin. It'll negate the usefulness of most asymmetrical algorithms.

Conversely, if someone figures out the solution to P = NP, we can probably end cryptography so there's that.

I don't understand why people are still putting Bitcoins into their exchange wallets. Custodial wallets are not safer than those which gives you complete control of the private keys and is definitely not the main point of Bitcoin; giving control of your funds to someone else.

Bitcoin did crash in the period of Nov 26 so that could potentially explain for certain decrease in the Bitcoins held by the exchanges as more people sell off their holdings and those long term prospective buyers moving it offsite.

Custodial wallets are already intrusive enough, they have unreasonable expectations to have taint-less coins as well as the present KYC/AML restrictions. The only way around it is to try to use P2P OTC exchanges or other wallets. I'll expect harsher regulations but they'll most likely affect US exchanges only.

No. It's not allowed[1].

It's not a clever workaround. It's just the user asking to be banned. Signature restrictions are there for a reason and attempting to circumvent said rules obviously would warrant a ban.

[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=749961.0

+

---

I've reported plenty of them and they've all been banned so far.

Like it or not, PrimeDice or any other gambling sites operates in certain jurisdiction that will inevitably have some form of AML/KYC policy to follow. You can't fault them for being cautious about certain behaviours and require additional verification. Most gambling sites avoid getting themselves into this situation and only flag suspicious transactions to avoid collecting too much data.

There's obviously a chance that the ID is a fake but if anything happens, they can still produce something to prove that they have done their due diligence and that any mishaps is not their fault.

Now that this is done, you can't probably avoid using PrimeDice or any other gambling sites in the future if you don't want to deal with this kind of situations and that the thread should be closed.

You can extract all the private keys and addresses. Being able to and be able to handle and spend them depends on your technical competency and that's something that I don't think you should risk and frankly it could be pretty tedious. Following our method allows you to see your balance as well as being able to spend them easily.

I think it's more of a stopgap measures adopted by them. For Zimbabwe, I'm aware that they adopted the other currencies to transact during the period of hyperinflation. They did adopt a new currency system which, I don't really think worked because the crux of the problem doesn't exactly lie on their currency but with the government.

Perhaps, there's an argument to be made for the people in these situations, when the state fails it's functions.

Most countries actually use their individual fiat as a way to regulate their economy and to try to enact favourable policies through monetary controls. Using Bitcoin as their primary currency could defeat the purpose unless they could amass enough Bitcoin to be able to make their economy work effectively.

Some of the failed state has used other countries' fiat as a way to transact and I imagine that could be possible with Bitcoin as well. But for it to work, it isn't as easy as it seems.

Bitcoin Core is technically the "official" reference client whereby all the protocol rules are defined on there. The project itself is open source and everyone can contribute to the project if they want and have the technical competency. I believe most "Bitcoin Developers" or the ones that are contributing actively are working in the field that's related to computing.

So the entire project is hosted on github[1] and there are repository maintainers to merge pull requests and someone in charge to merge to create new release candidates and it's stable release. Most of the changes comes from pull requests[2] whereby everyone discusses about the feasibility and the rationale behind the change in the code. They can comment to support the pull request or to state that they have reviewed the code. Afterwhich, the pull requests could potentially be merged by the repository maintainer.

You can also fork the client yourself to create your own version of Bitcoin, which makes it essentially an alt coin.

[1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin
[2] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls

Doesn't matter. Having a fast internet connection doesn't necessarily means that the synchronization will be fast. Try looking at your task manager for signs of disc usage as well as CPU usage. The verification will be slowed significantly once it's goes pass the recent assumevalid threshold which means it'll validate all the subsequent blocks thoroughly and it will take quite some time.

Uncheck that and it'll disable pruning. The client will redownload all the blocks from the start and synchronize again. You'll thus be downloading about ~350GB worth of data as well as it's equivalent disk space.

---

---

I would actually recommend you to use bitcoin-cli if you don't want to resynchronize again. That'll require certain level of technical competency and I think reindexing the blockchain would be less cumbersome.

They are. China chose a more drastic measures to eliminate fiat (most of the shops there only accept Wechat/AliPay). You don't see any other country using such a method to eliminate fiat. The measure ensured that most will likely be using those payment system other than fiat.

CCP doesn't have Bitcoin farms though. Their main objective is to make Bitcoin harder to obtain which also explains the fiasco involving the major china exchanges. Monopolizing the ownership of Bitcoin doesn't do anything for them and they don't really have a reason to do so. They aren't fond of the benefits that Bitcoin provides which is against their goals.

Fact is, the numerous payment systems within China wasn't invented primarily for the convenience of their citizens. WeChat Pay and AliPay can and will track their users and their spending habits. Bitcoin will be able to masks their user's activities to a certain extent and that makes it hard for a police state to monitor their citizens.

Secondly, China isn't fond of Bitcoin as it provides for an easy and untraceable way for the wealthy to transfer their capital elsewhere and thus resulting in their capital control being less effective.

Cryptos offers much more than that and CCP obviously doesn't want that to happen.

Depends on what you're storing. QR code has a limited size that could hinder whatever you're doing.

The effectiveness of this depends on what you're using to encrypt the information. The password has to be a random and non-guessable passphrase with sufficient length. The encryption algorithm should be one that is preferably slow and secure. I'll probably use AES as a cipher.

Ideally, if you were to put anything that you intend to keep as a secret in plain sight, you're just asking for it. It'll be the most secure if you deliberately keep it that way and not expose it around.

---

Try exploring steganography, it's definitely way more obscure than a QR code.

There's no world government. You can attempt to make Bitcoin harder to use, think Great FireWall of China. But there are always ways to circumvent it, plenty of them.

No. It's purely P2P. The node discovery is generally done through the pre-set DNS seeds within the nodes. The nodes will populate the list of IP addresses that is known to be the functional Bitcoin nodes. Through that, the full node can continue to populate it's peers list through addr messages and stuff.

You don't technically need it. It's just useful to have a domain that contains everything a newbie needs to get started.

Won't work, they'll probably just use an auto-refresher/script that sends a GET request to the forum in intervals.
It'll be hard to get into the forum without some form of connections and they'll probably pay someone to give them merits. Probably would raise the bar of entry too high and isn't ideal.
I think theymos stated that the newbie jail won't make a comeback so I guess its out of the picture as well.

---

Mitchell's bot seems to be working well atm in detecting them though so there's that going for us.

Not likely. But I had the impression that you were comparing the absolute security being provided by both and hence why I've written the post. If you have a decent amount of money, the incentive could possibly be pretty enticing.
There is. But the HW wallets are specifically designed to try to minimize the signature that is required to successfully execute an attack. If there is indeed a POC, the attack that I've found seems to require certain level of expertise and/or time. I don't think they are unhackable but certainly will be less hackable than an air-gapped old computer.

---

I think the difference level of security when comparing devices that are not specifically designed to secure keys and those who are is fairly significant. The reason why you see more POC, especially ones that requires a high level of expertise against HW wallets is because they go through pretty rigorous audits than what you see with normal wallets, especially ones that actually has unrealistic scenarios for the attack to be successful.

I agree with you that air-gapped cold storage are fairly secure. But in terms of the level of security, having a separate air-gapped computer is definitely not better than a HW wallet and I think having them on the same playing field would certainly raise some eyebrows.